Stylos is the blog of Jeff Riddle, a Reformed Baptist Pastor in North Garden, Virginia. The title "Stylos" is the Greek word for pillar. In 1 Timothy 3:15 Paul urges his readers to consider "how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar (stylos) and ground of the truth."

Monday, March 24, 2014

Text Note: How many "works of the flesh" in Galatians 5:19-21? 17 or 15?

In Galatians 5:19-21 Paul provides a list of “the works of
the flesh.”The question is how many
items should be included in the list.The
traditional text lists 17 items, while the modern-critical text lists only 15
items, omitting “adultery [moicheia]”
(v. 19) and “murders [phonoi]” (v. 21).Note:There are also a few other more minor variations (e.g., v. 20
traditional reads ereis; modern
critical, eris; v. 20 traditional
reads zeloi; modern critical, zelos).

External evidence:

Here is a look at external evidence for these two variants
from the Nestle-Aland apparatus:

a.Adultery:

The word is included, among other early Greek manusctipts, in
the second corrector of Sinaiticus, D, F, G, and Psi, as well as in the vast
Majority of manuscripts.Among versions,
it is found in the Harklean Syriac.In
the Church Fathers it is found in a Latin translation of Irenaeus (c. 395 AD),
in Cyprian (d. 258 AD), and in Ambrosiaster (366-384 AD)

It is omitted in the original hand of Sinaiticus, as well as
in Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and several others.In the versions, it is omitted in the Syriac Peshitta, the Vulgate, and
the Coptic.As for the Church Fathers,
it is omitted by Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 215 AD).

b.Murders:

It appears in Alexandrinus, C, D, F, G, and Psi among other
Greek manuscripts, including the vast Majority.It also appears in the Old Latin, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Coptic
Bohairic, as well as the Church Father Cyprian (d. 258 AD).

It is not included in p46, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and a few
other Greek manuscripts, as well as a few Vulgate manuscripts and the Coptic
Sahidic version.Among Church Fathers,
it is not included in Marcion (according to Epiphanius; c. second century AD), the
Latin of Irenaeus (c. 395 AD), Clement of Alexandria (d. c. 215 AD), and
Ambrosiaster (366-384 AD).

Internal Evidence:

Again, let us consider each of these variants:

a.Adultery:

Metzger does not offer any discussion of this variant in his Textual Commentary.One can understand how the word might have
been accidentally omitted.Harder to
understand is why it might have been added if not originally present.This is not to say that it does not serve as
an appropriate introduction to the cluster of “works” which deal with sexual
sin (fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness), “adultery” seems to be a
fitting opening to the list, much as “love” properly introduces the
corresponding “fruit of the Spirit” (vv. 22-23).The Westminster Shorter Catechism notes that
the seventh commandment properly forbids not only physical adultery but also
all unchaste thoughts, words, and deeds (cf. Jesus’ interpretation of the
commandment in Matt 5:27-28).To remove
the term would disrupt the natural flow of the list.

b.Murders:

The possibilities for copying errors are immediately apparent
with this example.The preceding term is
“envying [phthonoi],” a word that
differs from “murders [phonoi]” by a
single letter (theta).Metzger concedes that a “wide range of
witnesses” read phthonoi phonoi and
that “the shorter reading may have originated in accidental omission due to
homeoteleuton” (Textual Commentary,
pp. 597-598).Nevertheless, he adds that
majority of the UBS committee “was impressed by the age and quality of the
witnesses” supporting the omission of “murders.”Thus, they were “inclined to think that phonoi was inserted by copyists who
recollected Ro. 1.29” (Ibid., p. 598).Is
it really feasible to think, however, that a copyist would be influenced by
Romans 1:29 when copying Galatians?Even
Metzger and the UBS could only assign the omission a “D” reading (Ibid., p.
597).

Conclusions:

The traditional list of 17 “works of the flesh” has strong,
ancient attestation.It was the reading
adopted by the vast Majority of Greek manuscripts and, thus, the reading most
accepted in early Christian usage.To
remove “adultery” would disrupt an appropriate opening to the cluster of words which
follow related to sexual sin.The possible
accidental scribal omission of “murders,” in particular, is very easy to
understand in light of its close similarity in spelling to “envyings.”One can only think that these two words came
to be omitted in the modern-critical text, because they are omitted in
Sinaiticus (original hand) and Vaticanus.We must conclude, however, that there are weighty and convincing reasons
to maintain the traditional reading.

5 comments:

Thank you for sharing. I had a friend ask me recently about a James White Video, and some of his assertions there. I shared this post to him as another example of Textual corruption. If you are interested, the video I was referring to is at:

As far as the James White video, I did post my response on my blog. My friend is in New Mexico, so we are limited on Communication. Here is the link if you are interested. I certainly don't mind your critique. http://thewildernessroad.blogspot.com/2014/03/which-bible-translation-is-most-reliable.html

Thanks for this post. I am currently studying a few biblical topics, and beginning to see some of them intertwined somewhat. I am pondering if the works of the flesh is not a detailed list of fornication(s) or imoralities, not just sexual imorality as most commonly believed and taught. The NRSV list fornication first. If my pondering is correct, then I think it would explain "an uncleanness" in Deaut. 24, and also the regarding Christ words, "exceot for the cause of fornication". Also notice in what we often refer to as the ten commandments; that having no other gods (idolatry), disobedience (keeping the sabath), stealing, murder, adultery, lying, and coventing all are listed and separate, but fornication is not listed. Could fornication not be listed in what we call the ten commandments, because the fornications are listed separately already? Just my thoughts. Again thanks for sharing.